See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307936349

Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study from an

offshore wind farm in North Sea

Conference Paper · May 2016

CITATIONS READS

2 660

3 authors:

Ivana Anusic Gudmund Reidar Eiksund

Multiconsult Norwegian University of Science and Technology
6 PUBLICATIONS   5 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   208 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Morten Liingaard
Dong Energy A/s
23 PUBLICATIONS   324 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

REDWIN: REDucing cost in offshore WINd by integrated structural and geotechnical design View project

Westermost Rough Offshore Wind Farm View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ivana Anusic on 20 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Foundation and deep excavations – Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study
from an offshore wind farm in North Sea

Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study

from an offshore wind farm in North Sea

I. Anusic
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, ivana.anusic@ntnu.no

G. R. Eiksund
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

M. A. Liingaard
DONG Energy, Copenhagen, Denmark

ABSTRACT
Significant research effort has been put into pile driveability analyses with the aim of determining a
successful, safe and cost-efficient installation. Driveability analysis involves selection of
appropriate hammer, determination of pile makeup details and careful review of soil profile to reach
desired penetration or capacity with reasonable number of blows without overstressing the pile.
In this paper, pile driving records from the installation of 6.5 m diameter monopiles at a wind farm
in southern North Sea are considered. The ground conditions at the site generally consist of
between 10-50 m thickness of over consolidated clay with some layers of sand overlying chalk
bedrock. The most important of the variables to establish is the Static Resistance to Driving (SRD).
There are proposed procedures for evaluating SRD in sands and clays; however, the knowledge
about pile driveability in the chalk at the site is very limited. This makes prediction of the soil
response after driving the pile into the chalk layers unreliable. The piling records are used to test
how well the existing driveability suit the conditions at this site by comparing the predicted blow
counts with results from back-analyses of as-measured pile driving records.

Keywords: pile driving, backanalysis, chalk

1 INTRODUCTION effort has been put into accurately predicting

Continuous growth in need of renewable
energy demands new economical and
technologically feasible innovations. In order
to overcome increasing depths, dimensions of
the offshore structures as well as foundations
become larger.
According to Karimirad (2014), more than
65% of the offshore wind turbines are
monopile structures and significant research
the pile response to driving.
Pile driveability denotes the ability of a
pile to be safely and economically driven to
the required depth without causing excessive
fatigue damage. The analysis for a particular
set of driving equipment, pile material and
dimensions, and a specific type of soil at the
site involves a detailed static and dynamic soil
resistance input parameters to reflect layers
that pile penetrates.

1
Foundation and deep excavations – Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study
from an offshore wind farm in North Sea
Predicting Soil Resistance to Driving
(SRD) has been a challenging task and some
of the methods used nowadays include
procedures given by Toolan and Fox (1977),
Stevens (1982), Alm and Hamre (2001).
The design of monopile foundations for
offshore wind turbines relies heavily on
experience and approaches used in the oil and
gas industry, however these methods were
developed when most of piles installed
offshore had a diameter of less than 2 m.
This paper aims to evaluate the accuracy of
existing methods for 6.5 m diameter
monopiles at the Westermost Rough wind
farm in southern North Sea where ground
conditions generally consist of over
consolidated clay with some layers of sand
overlying chalk bedrock. Data from pile
installations have been gathered and used as
input into back-analysis to test how well
present driveability models suit the conditions
at this particular site.
2 SITE CHARACTERISATION
The Westermost Rough offshore wind farm is
located in the North Sea, around 8 km off the
Yorkshire Coast north of Hull and covers an
area of approximately 35 km2 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Location map of the Westermost Rough
offshore wind farm
2
2.1 Seabed and bathymetry
Geophysical survey indicated that within the
area water depths range between 11 m LAT
(lowest astronomical tide) and 28 m LAT.
The seabed generally shoals to the southwest
with gradient less than 1 degree, except where
current related features, evaluated as possible
relict sand waves or eskers, up to 7.0 m high,
were present.
2.2 Geological setting
Based on extensive geotechnical, geological
and geophysical logging data from ground
investigations, it was recognized that the site
consists of quaternary soils overlying chalk
bedrock.
Holocene Deposits (HLCN)
Holocene Deposits cover seabed across the
area of wind farm and are typically comprised
of sand, sandy gravels and low to high
strength clays between 0.2 m and 3.7 m thick.
Channel Infill Deposits (CHF)
Channel Infill Deposits consist of very low to
low strength silty clays and silty sand, with
thickness ranging between 3 m and 8 m along
the eastern edges of the wind farm site,
locally thickened from 16 m to 22 m in the
northern corner of the site.
Bolders Bank Formation - Upper (BSBK_U)
The deposits comprise very stiff, high, very
high and extremely high strength, slightly
sandy to very sandy gravelly clay, reddish
brown, becoming brown and greyish brown
with depth.
Bolders Bank Formation – Middle (BSBK_M)
The deposits of thickness between 1 m and 10
m comprise gravelly sands, locally
encountered as sandy gravel or cohesive soil
with a high proportion of granular material.
Bolders Bank Formation – Lower (BSBK_L)
The deposits are between 1 m and 12 m thick
and comprise very stiff, high, very high and
extremely high strength brown, dark brown to
reddish brown, slightly sandy, slightly
gravelly clay.
Foundation and deep excavations – Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study
from an offshore wind farm in North Sea

Rough Formation (ROUGH) samples recovered from boreholes at selected

Rough Formation deposits are found within locations and the interpretation of the
local channel features cut into the Chalk, with geophysical surveys, the formations were
thickness varying between 1.3 m and 13 m. recognized by cone penetration tests that were
The deposit comprises low plasticity, very carried out at all wind turbine locations.
high to extremely high strength, sandy The cone penetration test (CPTs)
gravelly clays. performed at the site were specified as CPTU
tests, i.e. including pore pressure readings.
Swarte Bank Formation (SWBK)
The outcome of the CPT classification is a
Swarte Bank Formation deposits locally refinement of the complete soil stratigraphy,
underlay the Rough Formation deposits. They determination of specific depths of different
comprise a light grey diamict with an almost geological units and identification of layers
complete absence of clast lithologies other with different engineering properties being
than chalk and occasional flint. The thickness visible from the increase or decrease in the
varies between 1.5 m and 13 m. measured cone resistance and skin friction.
Westermost Rough Chalk Formation (WMR) CPT data from several observed locations
The top of the chalk surface varies along the (P01, P02, P03, P04, P05 and P06) are
site. From the central northern part of the site illustrated in Figure 2 and design soil
to its southwestern corner, the top of the chalk parameters are specified in Table 1, where γ’
surface is from 28 m to 40 m below seabed. (kN/m3) is effective unit weight, Dd (%) is
On the other positions, though, the top of the relative density, φ (°) is friction angle and su
chalk surface is observed from 10 m to 19 m (kPa) is undrained shear strength. Plasticity
below seabed. The chalk comprises generally index PI (%) is 16-17 for ROUGH and BSBK
extremely weak and very weak, low density, formations and 8-9 for chalk D, CHF and
creamish white and white chalk. However, SWBK formations.
this chalk has a general absence of flint bands
and marl seams, making it different to chalk
of similar age encountered onshore. It is
assumed that this particular chalk formation
has not been previously logged and therefore
it is called the Westermost Rough Chalk
Formation.
The relevant chalk characteristics for pile
design and installation are the intact strength
(directly related to porosity/density) and the
fracture condition that is defined by the
CIRIA grade (Lord, Clayton, Mortimore,
2002). The chalk at WMR is low to medium
density and consists of three geotechnical
units: structureless chalk (CIRIA Grade D),
structured fractured chalk (CIRIA Grade B
and Grade C) and structured assumed intact
chalk (CIRIA Grade A).

2.3 Geotechnical profiles at the site

In addition to the identification of soil layers Figure 2. CPT profiles for position P01-P06
based on the geological description of soil

3
Foundation and deep excavations – Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study
from an offshore wind farm in North Sea

Table 1. Soil properties at six positions Petroleum Institute (API) proposes such
γ’ Dr su [kPa] methods. There are number of methods
[kN/m3] [%] φ [°] presented over the years and are still in use in
15 , 27c,
aef North Sea pile design.
HLCN 7 35°
36b, 46ad The earliest models like Toolan and Fox
CHF_C 11 - (140-280)f (1977) did not include friction fatigue
CHF_S 7 (27-40)f (31°-33°)f concept, which was presented in 1978 by
(130-280)a Heerema who made driveability prediction
(120-330)b based on the assumption that skin friction in
BSBK_U 11 - (130-230)c
clay is gradually lost along the pile wall as
(130-530)e
driving proceeds (Heerema, 1978). Semple
(470-1500)a
BSBK_L 11 - and Gemeinhardt’s method from 1981 related
350e
(160-240)b unit skin friction to clay stress history
BSBK_MC 11 - (Semple and Gemeinhardt, 1981). In 1982,
(240-390)d
15c Stevens adopted model by Semple and
(28°)c Gemeinhardt. The methods mentioned above
BSBK_MS 10 (65-80)a
(34°-40°)ade are referred to as traditional methods, while
(80-100)de
ROUGH 11 - 615a
recently developed models are usually based
SWBK 10 - (750-930)a
on CPT data (Alm and Hamre, 1998).
Three driveability approaches have been
WMR_D 9.3 - 125
selected for the purpose of this paper, some
WMR_B/C 9.3 - -
are slightly modified in order to achieve better
WMR_A 9.3 - -
* estimation of the ground conditions at this
Index a-f corresponds to positions P01-P06, respectively
particular site and a brief summary of each is
described in section below.
It should be noted that due to poor CPT
readings in sand layers at positions P04 and 3.1 Methodology for estimating SRD
P05, and in chalk layer of grade B/C at
Toolan and Fox (1977)
position P05, the values of cone resistance
This SRD model, referred to as Toolan and
and skin friction at these locations should be
Fox method in this paper, proposes unit skin
taken with caution.
friction in clays is equal to remoulded
Table 1 also demonstrates how soil
undrained shear strength. However, this
parameters can vary significantly from one
parameter is difficult to measure accurately,
position to another, even in the same
so a portion of measured undisturbed strength
geological unit.
is often assumed, expressed by the factor α. A
range of α values were considered in order to
3 DRIVEABILITY ANALYSIS determine the most appropriate value for each
type of clay at this location and following
The total resistance to driving may be divided values were chosen: 0.5 for CHF_C,
in a static part, the static resistance to driving BSBK_U, BSBK_MC, BSBK_L, and 0.4 for
(SRD) and a velocity or displacement rate ROUGH and SWBK formations. Unit skin
dependent part called the damping. friction is then expressed as
Evaluation and development of correct input
of static resistance is of high importance to 𝑓𝑠 = 𝛼 ∙ 𝑠𝑢 (1)
obtain an accurate model. In order to
determine SRD, common practice is to relate The unit end bearing in clay is set equal to the
it to the Static Soil Resistance; American cone tip resistance.

4
Foundation and deep excavations – Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study
from an offshore wind farm in North Sea
In this study, the unit skin friction for
granular soils is not computed according to
original formulation, where it is calculated as
fraction of the recorded cone tip resistance
(1/300 for dense sand), but according to API
(API RP 2A, 1981) as
,
𝑓𝑠 = 0.8 ∙ 𝜎𝑣0 ∙ tan(𝜑 − 5°) (2)
where σ'v0 is the effective vertical stress (kPa)
and φ is the angle of internal friction.
Unit end bearing in granular soil is
assumed one third of the cone tip resistance. It
is generally accepted that the behaviour of
large diameter piles is fully coring,
implicating that unit skin friction is applied to
the external and internal pile wall and unit
end bearing to the cross-sectional area of the
pile.
The model is also applied for chalk. The
grade D chalk is treated as clay. For other
grades of chalk, unit end bearing is calculated
as 60% of the cone tip resistance, and unit
skin friction is set to 20 kPa.
Stevens et al. (1982)
Four cases are normally studied for this
method, lower and upper bound coring, and
lower and upper bound plugged, but in this
analysis, only coring will be considered. In
the original paper (Stevens et al., 1982) lower
bound assumes that internal skin friction is
50% of the external skin friction, and upper
bound assumes they are equal. This analysis
considers best estimate case as original upper
bound case, where equal skin friction acts on
the inside and outside of the pile wall. In
granular soils, both unit skin friction and unit
end bearing are calculated using static pile
capacity procedures.
, resistance. Unit end bearing is calculated as
𝑓𝑠 = 0.7 ∙ 𝜎𝑣0 ∙ tan⁡(𝜑 − 5) (3)
,
𝑞𝑡𝑖𝑝 = 40 ∙ 𝜎𝑣0 (4)
For cohesive soils, unit skin friction is
computed using stress history approach
presented by Semple and Gemeinhardt
5
(1981), and unit end bearing as defined in the
API (API RP 2A, 1981).
𝑓𝑠 = 𝛼 ∙ 0.5 ∙ (𝑂𝐶𝑅)0.3 ∙ 𝑠𝑢 (5)
𝑞𝑡𝑖𝑝 = 9 ∙ 𝑠𝑢 (6)
where OCR is overconsolidation ratio and α is
parameter calculated using the expression
from API (1981).
This model is also applied for chalk and
uses the same procedure as Toolan and Fox
model. The method is based on best estimate
soil parameters, factors are then applied to
both calculated skin friction and end bearing
according to original paper to obtain different
driveability cases. Further on, the method is
referred to as Stevens method.
Alm and Hamre (2001)
The model was first introduced in 1998 and
updated in 2001 to offer a direct correlation
for unit end bearing and skin friction with the
CPT. Since major contribution to SRD is due
to side friction, this method includes friction
fatigue concept, a reduction in unit skin
friction with increasing pile penetration. The
unit skin friction for cohesive soils is
𝑓𝑠 = 𝑓𝑠𝑟𝑒𝑠 + (𝑓𝑠𝑖 − 𝑓𝑠𝑟𝑒𝑠 ) ∙ 𝑒 𝑘∙(𝑑−𝑝) (7)
where fsi is the measured cone skin friction
and fsres is the residual friction, calculated as
𝑞𝑐
𝑓𝑠𝑟𝑒𝑠 = 0.004 ∙ 𝑞𝑐 ∙ (1 − 0.0025 ∙ , ) (8)
𝜎𝑣𝑜
and shape degradation factor is expressed as
, 0.5
𝑘 = (𝑞𝑐 /𝜎𝑣0 ) /80 (9)
where d (m) is depth to the soil layer, p (m) is
pile tip penetration and qc (kPa) is cone tip
60% of the cone tip resistance.
The unit skin friction for granular soils is
computed in the same way as for the cohesive
soils, however the initial skin friction fsi is
calculated as
Foundation and deep excavations – Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study
from an offshore wind farm in North Sea

assessment and it is common for an SRD

𝑓𝑠𝑖 = 𝐾 ∙ 𝑝0, ∙ tan⁡(𝛿) (10) model to have a set of associated quake
where K is calculated as values and damping factors.
, In all cases, the associated side and toe
0.0132 ∙ 𝑞𝑐 ∙ (𝜎𝑣0 /𝑝𝑎 )0.13
𝐾= ′ (11) quakes are 2.5 mm and toe damping Jp is 0.5
𝜎𝑣0 s/m. The selected parameters are in
The residual friction is calculated as 20% of accordance with the best practice (Pile
the initial friction, which is equal to measured Dynamics, 2010). The damping parameters
cone skin friction. The end bearing is used in this analysis are presented in Table 2.
computed as
, 0.2 Table 2. Damping parameters
𝑞𝑡𝑖𝑝 = 0.15 ∙ 𝑞𝑐 ∙ (𝑞𝑐 /𝜎𝑣0 ) (12) Skin
The chalk is treated as clay for both skin Soil unit Method Damping
friction and end bearing. The details of this Js [s/m]
model are given in the original article (Alm CHF_C Toolan&Fox 0.66
and Hamre, 2001). Further on, the method is BSBK_MC
Stevens 0.23
referred to as Alm and Hamre method. BSBK_U
BSBK_L Alm&Hamre 0.25
3.2 Methodology for backanalysis HLCN Toolan&Fox 0.25
To simulate the actual driving conditions, the CHF_S Stevens 0.16
hammer stroke is adjusted according to the BSBK_MS Alm&Hamre 0.25
driving energy used during installation. Toolan&Fox 0.23
ROUGH
Normally a driveability analysis is performed Stevens 0.23
SWBK
using the full hammer stroke to evaluate if the Alm&Hamre 0.25
selected hammer is able to drive the pile to Toolan&Fox 0.65
WMR
target depth. By adjusting the hammer stroke, Stevens 0.65
Chalk
the actual hammer energy recorded in the Alm&Hamre 0.25
driving log at the time of installation is used
to demonstrate how the predicted SRD suits 4 BACKANALYSIS
soil conditions. Bearing in mind that the pile
experiences both static and dynamic The main objective of this paper is to show
resistance during driving, the method relies on the results of predicting pile driveability
the wave equation analysis program based on the methods commonly used in the
GRLWEAP (Pile Dynamics, 2010), where industry today. Due to the complex local site
dynamic forces are represented by damping conditions, the analysis resulted in a
parameters. Smith (Smith, 1960) gave the significant overestimation of soil resistance to
total resistance mobilized during dynamic driving in chalk layers and slightly
loading as underestimation in clay or sand layers above.
The results from only six positions (CPT data
𝑅𝑑 = 𝑅𝑠 (1 + 𝐽 ∙ 𝑣) (13)
illustrated in Figure 2) out of 35 that were
where Rd is dynamic soil resistance, Rs is analysed, will be discussed below (Figures 4-
static soil resistance, J is a damping constant 9).
and v is velocity of a pile segment during a It is important to outline that the primary
given time interval. concern of analysis done in this paper is
The dynamic soil parameters are an prediction in chalk, so only positions that
integral part of any pile driveability penetrate this formation are referred to as
good/poor predictions. Positions located from

6
Foundation and deep excavations – Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study
from an offshore wind farm in North Sea

northwest to northeast generally give poor Table 3. Pile details

prediction, especially ones where water depth Penetratio Penetratio Wall
is larger (indicated with red rectangle in n depth n into thickness
Figure 3). However, there are exceptions, for [m] chalk [m] at tip [mm]
example position P06 (discussed later in the P01 21.66 0.0 73
paper). P02 26.96 13.56 72
It is stated in the API (API RP 2A-WSD, P03 31.06 10.26 72
2010) that the exact definition of refusal for a P04 25.96 15.16 72
particular installation should be defined in the P05 31.06 20.86 72
installation contract and should be adopted to P06 28.46 6.76 72
the individual soil conditions, hammer and
pile dimensions. At this specific location
refusal is encountered when one of the
following criteria is met: 125 blows per 0.25
m in six intervals of 0.25 m (500 bl/m), 200
blows per 0.25 m in two intervals of 0.25 m
(800 bl/m), 325 blows per 0.25 m in one
interval of 0.25 m (1300 bl/m) or 325 blows
per 0.25 m in two intervals of 0.25 m (1300
bl/m).

Figure 4. Driveability predictions for P01

As can be observed in Figure 4, both

Figure 3. Layout of the windfarm and water
depths
Information about pile make up and
penetration are given in Table 3. The hammer
used in installation process was IHC-S2000,
with the rated energy of 2000 kJ and the
stroke of 2.02 m.
Position P01 presented in Figure 4 differs
from other positions chosen for analysis in
this paper because it reaches the target depth
without penetrating into the chalk formation.
Stevens and Toolan and Fox methods show
underestimation in the upper clay layers, but
they tend to overestimate number of blows in
the lower layers of clay, reaching refusal at
20.9 m and 20.1 m below seabed,
respectively. At these depths, the su profile,
derived from the net cone resistance and a
cone factor Nkt of 18.5, gives extremely high
values of undrained shear strength.
Alm and Hamre method, which relies
entirely on CPT data, provided a good best
estimate prediction, with a slightly
overestimated number of blows in sand layer.
Figures 5-6 show driveability predictions
in positions P03 and P06 where chalk
formation is found at depth of 20.75 m and
21.7 m below seabed.

7
Foundation and deep excavations – Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study
from an offshore wind farm in North Sea

Alm and Hamre method follows the

blowcount trend from driving log but does not
predict well number of blows in chalk. It is
important to keep in mind that the method
was originally developed only for sand and
clay, nevertheless in this paper it is also used
for chalk under assumption it behaves as clay.
Figures 7-9 show backanalysis results for
positions where head of the chalk unit is
found at 13.4, 10.0 and 12.1 m below seabed.

Figure 5. Driveability prediction for P03

Figure 7. Driveability prediction for P02

Figure 6. Driveability prediction for P06

These positions are considered to have a

reasonable prediction of number of blows in
chalk layers by Stevens method. In clay, both
Stevens and Toolan and Fox methods
underestimate the blowcount, while
overpredicting it in sand (from 18.0 to 22.0 m
in Figure 6).
The increase in blowcount is visible after
depth of 29.5 m (P03) and 28.3 m (P06),
which can be related to change in calculation Figure 8. Driveability prediction for P04
procedure for chalk grade D and B/C.

8
Foundation and deep excavations – Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study
from an offshore wind farm in North Sea
Figure 9. Driveability prediction for P05
Stevens best estimate method gives
underestimation of number of blows in clay
and sand layers, but then tend to overestimate
it greatly in chalk layers below. Refusal is
encountered at 24.4 m (P02), 22.1 m (P04)
and 19.9 m (P05). Since major part of SRD is
due to skin friction, especially for chalk of
grade D, the overestimation in results
indicates that soil showed much less
resistance than expected. Figure 10
representing energy used by the hammer
during driving confirms this assumption.
Good prediction of blowcount in clay is
found at positions P02 and P05 with Toolan
and Fox method, but it tends to overestimate
number of blows in sand layer (also seen at
P04). Overestimation in chalk at these
positions is large, accompanied by reduction
of energy used by the hammer.
Alm and Hamre best estimate method
captures well blowcount prediction in clay
and sand layers at P02, but overestimates it in
chalk before meeting refusal at 25.7 m. The
same method does not provide good results
for sand layers at positions P04 and P05,
overestimating the number of blows by up to
100%, what can be explained by poor CPT
data found in those layers, since the method
relies directly on measured skin friction and
9
cone resistance. The refusal on these locations
is met at 5.51 and 8.3 m below seabed. The
hammer energy at P04 and P05 was low,
around 13 and 18%, meaning that
encountered resistance was not high.
Figure 10. Energy used by the hammer
5 OBSERVATION
One of the possible reasons for deviations in
backanalyzed number of blows should be
discussed within the energy domain of
driveability analysis. Future work will
therefore be focused on inspection of static
resistance curve that is being used in
GRLWEAP model, as the authors’ opinion is
that analysis with quake and damping settings
presented in paragraph 3.2 might work best
only for high energy close to rated hammer
energy.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Driveability approaches used in industry
today were developed for relatively small
diameter piles. According to analysis
presented in this paper, using these methods
to predict behaviour of large offshore
monopiles does not provide good estimation,
especially when found in complex site
 Foundation and deep excavations – Comparison of pile driveability methods based on a case study
from an offshore wind farm in North Sea

conditions. The comparison is done for
Toolan and Fox, Stevens and Alm and Hamre
methods, 35 piles were analysed in the
original study, but only six of them were
discussed in detail.
In general, Stevens best estimate method
predicts lower number of blows in the first
10-15 meters, while CPT based Alm and
Hamre gives quite a good fit, on condition
that CPT profile is reliable.
However, both methods show poor
prediction in chalk where it looks as if piles
penetrating these layers encountered very low
resistance from the surrounding soil.
From the study observed above, it is
recommended that correlating soil resistance
in chalk directly to CPT measurements should
be taken with extreme caution. Further work
is required in order to refine calculation
procedures to predict the behaviour of piles in
chalk layers.
7 REFERENCES
Conference and Exhibition, London, Vol. 1, pp.
413-422.
Karimirad, M. (2014). Offshore Energy Structures.
Springer International Publishing, Switzerland.
Pile Dynamics Inc. (2010). GRLWEAP: Wave
Equation Analysis of Pile Driving. Procedures and
Models Manual, Cleveland.
Semple, R.M. and Gemeinhardt, J.P. (1981). Stress
History Approach to Analysis of Soil Resistance to
Pile Driving. OTC 3969. Proc. Offshore Tech Conf,
Houston, USA.
Smith, E.A.L. (1960). Pile Driving Analyses by the
Wave Equation. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 86, pp. 35-61.
Stevens, R.S., Wiltsie, E.A. and Turton, T.H. (1982).
Evaluating Pile Driveability for Hard Clay, Very
Dense Sand and Rock. OTC 4205. Proc Offshore
Tech Conf, Houston, USA.
Toolan, F.E. and Fox, D.A. (1977). Geotechnical
Planning of Piled Foundations for Offshore
Platforms. Proc. Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, Part 1, vol. 62.

Alm, T. and Hamre, L. (1998). Soil Model for

Driveability Predictions. OTC 8835, Offshore
Technology Conference, No. OTC 8835, 13.
Alm, T. and Hamre, L. (2001). Soil Model for Pile
Driveability Predictions Based on CPT
Interpretations. Proceedings of the 15th
International Conf. on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Istanbul, Vol. 2, pp.
1297–1302.
American Petroleum Institute (API) (1981). RP 2A
Planning, Designing and Constructing Offshore
Platforms, 12th edition. Washington, DC
American Petroleum Institute (API) (2010). RP 2A-
WSD Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms-Working Stress Design, 21st
edition. Washington, DC
Lord, J.A., Clayton, C.R.I. and Mortimore, R.N.
(2002). Engineering in Chalk CIRIA Report C574.
London: CIRIA
Heerema, E.P. (1978). Predicting Pile Driveability:
Heather as an Illustration of the “Friction Fatigue”
Theory. Proc., European Offshore Petroleum

10

View publication stats